Comments by "" (@timogul) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
14
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gottafly2day Health care costs were going up every year prior to the ACA, and have gone up less each year since. It would be better if there was a Medicare for all option though.
Of this current infrastructure bill, $600B goes into transportation, roads and bridges, modernizing the federal vehicle fleet, upgrading public transit systems, then $200B on affordable housing (a lot of people are concerned about the nation's homeless), $100B to repair water lines and ensure clean drinking water, $100B to modernize school facilities, $100B to get broadband access to rural communities and reduce the cost of Internet access, $400B for aid for caregivers, which is becoming a larger and larger segment as our population ages, and $300B into manufacturing infrastructure so that we will be more competitive in the higher-end product markets relative to China.
This will all be paid for by raising the taxes on companies that currently pay very little back.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulbarclay4114 If you're talking about covid-19, the evidence is that it was not created through genetic engineering or gain of function, and there is definitely no indication that it was released deliberately. Even if it did leak from the lab somehow (which is still the less likely scenario), it would have been an accidental release, since in that scenario a number of researchers got sick. If they'd intended to release it they could have done so in a way that wouldn't have harmed themselves, right? That's just common sense.
Now, if you're talking their previous research, they had done some experimentation on SARs strains that had nothing to do with the covid-19 strain, and did enhance their transmissability, but they also neutered their actual harm, so even if those strains had escaped into the public, nothing would have happened. It's important to do that sort of research because it allows them to get ahead of the natural evolution of the viruses and plan out countermeasures.
And I would never accuse you of being high-intelligence or difficult to manipulate, since all you've done so far is parrot idiotic conspiracy theories spread by the Faux News as a distraction from the actual pandemic we're all living in.
1
-
1
-
@paulbarclay4114 Any "researcher" you can find to back your position is just copy-pasting the same conspiracy theory nonsense and is completely discredited. But people choose to believe them anyway because they prefer the lie that agrees with their own worldview to a truth that is scary and inconvenient.
You are just another obvious troll. You are either too dumb to realize you are being told what to think, thinking it and then telling other people to think it because its what you think you think, or you are even worse, a disinformation agent.
Either way you have not said one thing that cannot be easily refuted, and it's not even worth responding to.
Paul Barclay
Paul Barclay
4 hours ago
@Tim Ogul You are just copy pasting the garbage conventional narrative
for every "researcher" you are referencing I can show you PHDs from around the world who will totally refute your garbage narrative.
You are just another obvious troll. You are either too dumb to realize you are being told what to think, thinking it and then telling other people to think it because its what you think you think, or you are even worse, a disinformation agent.
Either way you have not said one thing that cannot be easily refuted, and it's not even worth responding to.
You aren't worth the effort. As soon as you spout conspiracy theories, you automatically disqualify yourself from any discourse.
But let's try it anyway. So you say that I should find Steven Quay impressive because he founded a therapeutics company. One that seems to be delivering snake-oil "treatments" to covid and breast cancer, without any reputable results. I'm sure he would have nothing to gain by becoming a "hero" to the types of people who chase snake-oil treatments rather than "main stream" drugs that actually work. Worked out for the My Pillow guy. It certainly had nothing to do with how his article came out right as his companies stocks were tumbling because their flagship drug failed its clinical trials.
And Richard Muller isn't even a medical researcher, he's a Physicist.
Quay may have a PHD in biology, and may know a lot more than I do, but I'm not putting my own expertise against his, nor should you. I'm putting the expertise of thousands of OTHER experts in the field, each with equal or higher credentials,m who DISAGREE with his conclusions. You can pick an idea out of a hat, and I'm sure you could find at least one person out there with a diploma who would support that position, that does not make it right. That is not science. The science involves actual research in the fields, and a consensus viewpoint that a significant amount of the scientific community agrees is true. Keith Grehan and Natalie Kingston wrote an article debunking his general claims on the subject.
If this WERE true, then the scientific community would WIDELY hold this position, and not just the fringe crackpots that run snake-oil companies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jetmech9287 Yes, if you buy a work of art, it goes on your taxes. Typically sales tax is what applies, although if you eventually sell art at a higher value than you paid, you need to be aware of both values and pay capital gains tax on the difference. Your signed baseball would be taxed at 28%+ if you sold it, although it's worth pointing out that the IRS isn't likely to come after people for selling a few small value items.
Again, I'm not sure what crypto is classified under, but I expect it would be something along the lines of stocks. If by some chance the current law does not cover crypto, then it can be changed so that it does, and it probably should be.
Now, as for transactions, you can get in a lot of trouble if you try to cheat the system. If, for example, you want to sell a house, and so you get the person to "pay" you in diamonds. Just because he handed you diamonds and not cash does not mean that this is not income and does not need to be reported. I'm no tax expert, so I'm not exactly sure where you would need to report that, but it would go someplace in your taxes that you acquired something of value.
Bitcoin does not have arbitrary value, because there is a market for it, and therefore a market value. You have to consider market value for tax purposes, not whatever value you put on an item.
1
-
@jetmech9287 But the point is, when you do sell it, you are accountable to paying capital gains on the difference between the buy price and the sell price, so it is listed in your taxes.
Bartering is taxable, and if you try to use bartering to avoid paying taxes on a transaction, that is called "tax evasion." Here is an article covering that: https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/irs-cautions-bartering-transactions-are-taxable-transactions
Here is an IRS page on it: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/four-things-you-should-know-if-you-barter
And no, the value of bitcoin is not arbitrary because it has a market value. I have no idea what that value is off the top of my head, but let's say it's $50K. If I gave you three Bitcoin, I could not declare that this value is arbitrary and that I only value it at $20, and therefore you only owe taxes as if I gave you $20. We would both have to use the market value of what 3 Bitcoin is worth, so we would have to register $150K for relevant tax data.
1
-
@TheDragonageorigins You'd think so, right? I mean it sounds right, doesn't it, that if you raise taxes on businesses, then they'll just jack up prices, right? Except we know for a fact that this is not what happens, they don't raise prices, or at least not more than they would under normal conditions. After all, there was a massive corporate tax cut recently and they certainly didn't lower prices, right?
The fact is that the companies will just set the prices to as high as people are willing to pay, and if they aren't willing to pay more, then they won't raise the prices. If they are willing to pay more then they will jack up the prices whether you raise taxes on them or not. Very few businesses are so on the margin that raising their corporate taxes would put them out of business, instead they will just not buy-back as many stocks, or not pay as massive a bonus to their executives, but so far as the average employee or customer, those prices are baked in either way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZepFan01-rs5xc I don't know the context of the photo you're talking about, but it's possible that the reporter was directly talking to people, while the cameraman was staying far enough back that it was less of a risk. Or perhaps the reporter was just trying to show a good example to the public. That is not some "gotcha" moment that you seem to think it is.
Hangovers have not killed 600,000 Americans. Yes, many people who get it only have mild flu symptoms, or no symptoms at all, but it still kills twenty times more people than the average flu season, even AFTER taking serious measures to reduce that number, and leaves others with long term disabilities. It may be a joke to you, but that does not mean that it actually IS a joke to those that get serious cases of it.
Some people have had the flu, you can see tracking of it on CDC sites. There were around 400 flu deaths in 2020-2021 season. The flu rate is much lower than in a normal year, but that is because 1. a lot more people got flu shots this year than normal, and 2. the same sorts of things that reduce covid risk ALSO work against the flu, so since a lot more people were staying home, not going to mass gatherings, etc., a lot less people got the flu. This should not be surprising to you. If we handled every flu season the way we handled covid, then we would see similarly tiny numbers, but since the flu has a MUCH higher survivability rate than covid, it would not be worth taking such extreme measures.
There are only 20-30,000 flu deaths in a normal flu season, I'm not sure who lied to you and told you "400,000." The CDC also predicts how many "expected deaths" each year will have due to normal circumstances like old age and card crashes and that sort of thing, and 2020 had roughly 400,000 deaths above that expected amount, meaning around 400,000 MORE Americans died last year than any reasonable expectations could account for without factoring in covid's impacts.
And are you SERIOUSLY trying to spread the Big Lie too now? Geez, I really hope you're a Russian plant at this point, because I'm tired of believing that Americans can be this stupid.
1
-
1
-
@Donny_Double_Dip Ok, so if a child is trans, why do you not believe they should be supported? You do know that trans youths have a much higher suicide rate than the general population, and that supporting their transition greatly reduces this, right? Why would you prefer that they die than that they bother you by being alive and trans?
Also, if you wanted to call a black person the n-word, and they asked you to not call them that, would you be offended that they are " forcing you to speak a certain way?" I mean, if we're being honest with each other, I'm sure your answer would be "of course," but I do think that society in general has moved past that point, as they will on this topic. Bigotry is a constantly moving goal post, what was seen as bigotry fifty years ago is often seen as "ridiculous" to even modern bigots, just as their own bigotry will seem ridiculous to bigots fifty years from now. That does not make it right. Get ahead of the curve, rather than behind it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SC-pe9ir But again, most of the land available for those purposes is either of other value to the city, like public parks, or it is far enough away from the city that homeless people would not use it. Do you think that public parks should be given over to homeless camps? Or should federal lands miles past the suburbs be given over to the homeless, understanding that few if any would actually go there? Everyone has lived somewhere, and no matter where someone lives, they have witnessed the homeless problem not being solved, because there is nowhere on Earth where it has been solved. A lot of things are being tried, some well-meaning, others indifferent, others cruel, but Newsome's have not been worse than most, and certainly not so bad as to undermine his governance in general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidking4779 The Republican laws are not about suppressing illegal voting, they are about suppressing legal voting, because in the last election Americans legally voted to remove the Republican presidential candidate and they did not like that. The new rules are designed to reduce voting in traditionally Democratic parts of states, and to allow Republican officials in states to overturn election results that displease them.
Illegal voting is not a problem in the US, it never has been. The conservative Heritage Foundation tracks voter fraud in the US and over the past twenty years had been able to find almost none, certainly not enough to change the results of any election. There will always be some people who want to commit crimes, but at a certain point, the attempts to prevent a crime cause more harm than the crime itself. Like you could prevent theft by preemptively jailing ALL citizens, but would that be worth it?
As I said, if there is practically no voter fraud already, would reducing that to zero be worth it if it means that ten or a hundred or a thousand times as many perfectly legal voters find themselves unable to exercise that right due to the new restrictions on how and when they are able to do so?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vade137 Because that's what you do when you market a drug. Like look at any drug commercial, they will say something like "Dupixent (dupilumab)" The "Dupixent" is the brand name, it is something they have Trademarked and market to the public. The "dupilumab" is the "inside the company" name for the drug itself, which they tested it under and all that, but they didn't bother any marketing push until it was actually approved, because a lot of drugs fail at approval, so the "Dupixent" part of the name didn't even exist until then.
So now that the Pfizer vaccine is approved, they are allowed to market it, there will be commercials on TV promoting it just like the various other drug ads. But what are they going to call it, "the Pfizer vaccine?" No, they want to have a specific trademarked brand identity for it. That's just how marketing works.
Anyway, the "point of FDA approval" had nothing to do with the Biden administration, it is just what drugs do when they are submitted to the FDA. Full approval was always something they were working towards, it just involves a lot of red tape so it takes a long time to wade through, which is why they got the emergency authorization after the testing turned out positively.
1
-
@vade137 In July, 25,000 Americans died of covid, only a handful of them had been vaccinated. At that time, over 50% of the population had been vaccinated though, so if "the vaccine didn't work," then half the dead should have been vaccinated people too, but they weren't. If the vaccinated population had not been vaccinated, it seems likely that in July there would have been around 40-50,000 dead instead of 25,000, while if everyone had been vaccinated, then there probably would have been less than 1000 dead.
The vaccines are not perfect, nor has anyone ever claimed that they are. They are not meant to make people completely 100% immune to the virus. What they do provide is a serious defense against the virus, greatly reducing transmission, infection, hospitalization, and death. You hear about the "breakthrough" cases because they are unusual, when the reality is that the overwhelming majority of those in the hospital are unvaccinated. Getting a booster of the vaccine is not terribly unusuall, most vaccines require multiple shots. Look at childhood vaccine schedules, you'll see that most of the vaccines you have to take 1-2 shots when around 1yo, and then another shot around 5 or so, and that's what provides a strong lifelong protection.
1
-
@vade137 Lol, "the numbers sound made up," no, they aren't "made up," they're the actual numbers recorded. The number of people who die is much higher than it would be if people were less reckless about it. If you haven't heard of mass burials then you haven't been paying any attention at all. Funeral homes and crematoriums have been overloaded lately, look it up yourself.
They don't exactly track "people that get sick and get better," because that's a really complicated thing to keep track of. What they do track is numbers of people who have been newly infected and people who actual die, so if you'd like you can make a rough calculation based on that, but the point is that thousands of people are dying, and there's no reason for most of those because if they'd been vaccinated, they would have lived.
Also, the case of nursing home deaths were misreported on certain Faux News stations. What they did wrong was labeling people who died in NY hospitals that had come from nursing homes as "hospital deaths" instead of "nursing home deaths," but the actual number of nursing home deaths was not higher than in other equivalent states. It certainly didn't lead to more deaths than otherwise. It wasn't "more people dead than reported," it was just "the places where people had died" being misreported, so not really relevant to anyone outside of New York.
As for people who have gotten sick and survived, why "celebrate" that? I mean, it's good for them, yeah, but wouldn't it be better if they hadn't gotten sick at all because people took better care of themselves? It doesn't do anything to reduce the number of people killed by the pandemic. If we're going to throw a party every time someone doesn't die, we'd never get any work done.
As for people who survive having antibodies, the research so far indicates that surviving covid gives far weaker protection than the vaccines, and it wears off much faster than even without the booster. There is no reason for businesses to consider previous infection as some sort of alternative to vaccination, it's the vaccination status that is medically significant.
1
-
1
-
@vade137 It really doesn't make you "think about the fiancial bonuses hospitals get for diagnosing COVID and using Ventilators" unless oyu are a bit silly and conspiratorially minded. The covid death stats are high in the US because the US has a particularly high number of stupid people, relative to other parts of the world. I mean, our adult population is only 67% vaccinated, even though the vaccines have been available for months now. A lot of people refuse to wear masks unless absolutely forced to do so, and even then whine like babies in a crib about it. Hospitals would like NOTHING more than to keep people OUT of the hospitals, the people who work there are EXHAUSTED by all of this.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the US has much better testing and medical treatment than in most third world countries, so plenty of people who die there of covid aren't adequately recorded as such. They just die. Not to mention that they don't have as much urban population density or international travel as the US does, so the virus does not spread around as rapidly there. I mean, they don't have idiot biker rallies where they don't wear masks and then split up all across the country to infect those communities like we do.
I really wish that we weren't more likely to die of covid than in other countries, but that would require having less stupid Americans that want to pretend that nothing is wrong and that they can just act like "business as usual" and it will all totally work out.
The Doctor you cited is just not a particularly trustworthy one. He panders to an audience that doesn't want to believe that things are as bad as they actually are, and he tells them what they want to hear so that he can make money off of their ignorance. It really makes you think about why he would do such a thing, when it leads to thousands of unnecessary deaths. . .
1
-
@vade137 You need to listen to the words being said, not just look at the pictures. The words are the important part. Whichever undertakers you are talking about, they were either lying to you because they are promoting the conspiracy theories, or they were extreme outliers. It's not like there was a 10x increase in overall deaths, several million people are expected to die each year, and "only" 600,000 additional Americans died last year than were expected, so it's not like they would be overloaded all the time, but it was still 600,000 Americans that didn't have to die if their fellow Americans were less stupid, and they still did pile up in situations where an area had an extreme spike like Florida is seeing today, and New York was getting early last year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vade137 I am "carrying water" for no one, other than the American people. I am only telling you the unvarnished truth of the matter, in the hopes that you will stop spreading misinformation that is costing American lives. Of course, who knows, maybe that's what you're being paid to do, and if so, I guess, find a better job?
The pandemic isn't "neatly sorted by age groups," that's just how it is reported. It does effect older age groups more, because the things it does to the human body are things that older bodies are less capable of handling, but it's not like if you are one year older than your risk shoots way up or anything like that, it's just that when you collect data you write it out in categories, so the "31-40" age group and then the "41-50" age group would see a huge jump, but if you just looked at the "40-41" age group you wouldn't see a huge jump right there.
The problem was that people were never really "on board with" the CDC. They were willing to listen for a few weeks, but then the pandemic wasn't "solved" yet an they got bored and antsy, and they wanted out NOW, even though it wasn't safe to do so. That, unfortunately, is not how it works. You can't just "quit pandemicking" because you aren't having fun. It's like children on a car trip, "are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?"
No, we are not there yet, sit down, shut up, and be patient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zatoichi3652 If you want that to be your stance on the matter, then it can be, but it is not the one that I am advocating. I don't believe it would be necessary to ban alcohol, but it should still be illegal to abuse it, such as driving drunk. Likewise, if you are in public without being masked and vaccinated, then you are likely to spread the virus to others, just as a drunk driver is likely to hit people, and so it is in society's interests to prevent that.
I don't WANt the government telling me or anyone else what to do, what I WANT is for them to do the right thing ON THEIR OWN. But since we, as a country, have proven ourselves INCAPABLE of doing the right thing on our own, it has become NECESSARY for the government to ensure that the right thing be done.
If you don't want the government telling you that you have to wear a mask and get vaccinated, then the best way to ensure that is to wear your mask and get vaccinated.
1
-
1
-
@j8thgen479 Plenty of people "with immune systems" have died from this virus, Justin. While people with comorbitities are at more risk, that does not mean that those without them have none. And besides, it's not about you. There are others with those comorbitities out there, so if you can do your part to ensure that they don't get sick, then you can take pride in that. I promise you, it will feel better than the shame of knowing that all you did during this pandemic was make things worse for everyone.
And I think you misunderstood the recent CDC discussion, they do not say that vaccinated people spread just as much as unvaccinated, only that they still spread some. So long as you wear your mask and socially distance, you can prevent the spread of the virus to those around you. I saw a meme that I think is perfect for this moment, it went something like "What if in a year or two they discover that masks did absolutely nothing to protect against the virus, and they were just playing us like fools for wearing them? I'd feel great, because I knew that either way, I was at least trying to protect people as best I could." Do your best.
And as for the CDC and WHO "changing their stories?" That is EXACTLY what we should WANT them to do. That is how science works, it does not have the answers, it has questions. Questions are good. The CDC gave the best guidance it had AT THE TIME at the start of the pandemic. This was a new virus and there was very little data to work with. As more research came in, it might seem that a certain strategy was helpful, so they would recommend it. If even more research came in, those strategies might not have been that important, so they would remove that guidance. That's fine, it's better to do the best you have with the information available than to do nothing at all.
Don't be afraid of questions, OR of answers that you don't like.
Also, I just gotta lol, "nobody in this thread is a conspiracy theorist!. . . Why do we always have to say “yes master” to the government ? If you’re a useless puppet than ok,"
Lol.
1
-
@j8thgen479 I called people conspiracy theorists because they refuse to accept the answers to their questions if those answers do not line up with their conspiracy theories about "big government being sneaky." If the answer is "there is a pandemic going on and it's in everyone's interest to get vaccinated and wear masks," they would prefer to ignore that answer and continue to believe in their conspiracies. Asking a question is ONLY of value if you're prepared to listen to the answer, otherwise it's just an excuse to not behave responsibly.
As for masks, you're missing the point entirely. Like I said, the point of scientific advice is to act with the best information we have, collect MORE information, and then ADAPT to that new information. Fauci did say masks don't work, EARLY in the pandemic, when we didn't KNOW what we do now. At the time he said that, masks were in extremely short supply, medical professionals could not get what they wanted because the Trump administration had failed to replenish the emergency stockpiles and were buying up available stock away from the doctors who needed them. At the time he said that, it was the best advice based on what we knew at the time, that it was not necessary for the average person to wear one.
In the weeks and months that followed, more data came in, and that data showed that communities that had consistent mask wearing DID reduce community spread. The point of the mask on your face is not about making you immune to the virus, although it does provide some protection there, it is more about protecting others from the air coming out of your mouth, which might be infected or not. So then Fauci updated his guidance based on this new information, so people should be wearing masks.
Then a few months back, with the data showing that vaccinated people spread the virus less than unvaccinated people, the CDC gave the guidance that fully vaccinated people did not need to wear masks, but still could if they wanted to. I believe that this was mostly driven by a desire to provide an incentive for people to get vaccinated, but too many unvaccinated people took advantage of this to say "well then I don't need to wear one either!" which is a bit like someone in a car saying "well if people on foot don't need seatbelts, then obviously I don't either!" I personally think this guidance was a bit naive on their part, but it is what it is.
Then the Delta variant started hitting the US, hospitals started getting overrun, the death rate rose above 2020 levels in many red states, and the guidance changed to "ok, not enough people are getting vaccinated, so I guess we need to wear masks again." So that's where it stands today.
You don't have to trust Fauci on that, you can look up the data yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@M S It is not remotely shocking that there was not a single animal found in the wild with covid. It is a NOVEL virus strain, if it were common enough that you could just stumble onto it, then it would have been infecting humans years ago.
The wet market theory is based on the idea that similar viruses commonly circulate among some animals, and that one of these animals came into contact with other animals that they would not encounter in the wild, but would encounter in the chaotic conditions of a wet market or a feeder facility to one. Then animal A infected animal B, and in animal B's immune system the virus was able to mutate into something that was infectious to humans. If this were the case, then there would not be some massive population of infected animals in the wild to find, and even if there were, they would be who knows where, thousands of miles from the market.
The actually infected animals would likely have been sold and eaten months before covid became publicly known to be a problem, and in the meantime, the infection rates would be slowly increasing among humans in the area.
Anyone expecting to find some population of covid-19 bats somewhere, and declaring victory that we haven't, is just missing the point entirely.
As for "Chinese scientists speaking out?" There's a lot of fluff to that idea. I've seen several cases of right-wing news outlets picking up stories on "this major Chinese figures is speaking out," or "this major Chinese figure disappeared!" and it's a big news story for days or weeks among the conspiracy theory crowd, but then they just turn up again elsewhere, because they don't have an Instagram they are logging into every day and weeks do normally go by in which they are not visible to the public. And there has also been at least one Chinese scientist that has led weight to the conspiracy theories, but who is being paid by a rich right-wing guy, so her motivations are a bit suspect. There does not yet seem to be anything credible from that line of discussion yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamdozier5190 No, the rich do not already pay their fair share. The bottom 50% do pay their fair share, typically in the form of sales taxes and state taxes. They cannot afford to pay more than that because they can already barely make ends meet. The rich have no such problem, you could take away 99% of what they make and they would still have plenty to live off of. I am by no means suggesting that overall tax rates should be that high, but they could be without the rich being in as bad a place as the bottom 50%.
Nobody "worked and succeeded" on their own, everyone who succeeds in life does so on the back of the society around them, providing access to infrastructure and customers, access to education, and more often than not access to parents that foot the bill of their early life. Yes, some people who are rich have worked very hard in life, but plenty of people who are poor have worked much harder, so "hard work" is in no sense the determining factor there. No one is entitled to be as rich as the top 0.1%. No one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1